This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision, [1] dated 31 January
2008, later upheld in a Resolution[2] dated 28 March 2008, both
rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88087. The
Court

of

Appeals,

in

its

assailed

Decision,

affirmed

the

Order[3] dated 3 July 2006 of Branch 258 of the Regional Trial
Court of Parañaque City (RTC-Branch 258), dismissing the action
for damages, docketed as Civil Case No. CV-05-0402, filed by
petitioners

Fidel

O.

Chua

(Chua)

and

Filiden

Realty

and

00.
125185.
Respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. registered in petitioner Chua’s name (subject properties). and No.
engaged
in
the
realty
business.[7]
Having failed to fully pay their obligations. 31 July 1996. No. and the real estate mortgages were
repeatedly
amended
in
accordance
with
the
increase
in
petitioners’ liabilities. 21 January 1997. petitioners obtained other loans from
respondent Metrobank.Development Corporation (Filiden).00.
plus
unpaid
interest
. which was secured by a real
estate mortgage (REM) on parcels of land covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCTs) No. whereby the loan obligations of
the former were restructured. petitioners obtained from respondent
Metrobank a loan of P4.
petitioners were given an open credit line for future loans.
Petitioner Chua is president of co-petitioner Filiden.000. petitioners
entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement [8] with respondent
Metrobank on 13 January 2000. (108020)1148. on the ground of forum
shopping. 17 January 1996. a
domestic
[4]
corporation.
[6]
Since the value of the collateral was more than the loan.
and 12 October 1998. The debt consisted of a total
principal
amount
of P79.[5]
Sometime in 1988. On 18
September 1995.000.650.000. (respondent
Metrobank) is a domestic corporation and a duly licensed banking
institution. 93919.

including interest and penalties. a
Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary
.
In
a
letter[9] dated 28
February
2001.
and other expenses for the foreclosure and sale. legal fees. petitioner Chua.
When petitioners still failed to pay their loans.898. in his personal capacity
and acting on behalf of petitioner Filiden.[10] On 4 May 2001.101. excluding unpaid interest and penalties (to be
computed from 14 September 1999). filed before Branch 257
of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque (RTC-Branch 257). The auction sale
was scheduled on 31 May 2001.391 as of 16 January 2001. within three days from receipt of said
letter.
and
penalty
charges
ofP552.784. as well as the
stipulated attorney’s fees.093. petitioners
received a copy of the Notice of Sale.96. Upon a verified Petition for Foreclosure
filed by respondent Metrobank on 25 April 2001.[11]
On 28 May 2001. attorney’s fees. Celestra) issued a Notice of Sale dated
26
April
2001.
the
lawyers
of
respondent Metrobank demanded that petitioners fully pay and
settle their liabilities. respondent
Metrobank sought to extra-judicially foreclose the REM constituted
on the subject properties.450.
Romualdo Celestra (Atty. respondent Atty.98. in the total
amount of P103.of P7.309.
wherein
the
mortgage
debt
was
set
at P88.02. Amortization payments were to be made in
accordance with the schedule attached to the agreement.

and a Certificate of Sale was accordingly
issued to respondent Metrobank as the highest bidder of the
foreclosed properties. the Certificate of Sale would still be
. even if an
auction sale was conducted. proceeded
on 8 November 2001. petitioners filed with RTC-Branch 257 a
Motion to Admit Amended Complaint [15] in Civil Case No. RTCBranch 257 issued an Order directing that the said sale be reset
anew after 8 November 2001. respondent
Atty.
[12]
against respondents Atty. at a coffee shop owned by the former’s other daughter.
Grace Celestra Aguirre. the rescheduled date of the auction sale. RTC-Branch 257
issued a TRO enjoining respondents Metrobank and Atty. The Amended Verified Complaint.Restraining Order (TRO). Arlene
Celestra.[16] attached to the said
Motion. CV-010207. Celestra’s daughter. And.
[14]
On 13 February 2002. Celestra. The auction sale.
CV-01-0207.
impleaded
as
additional
defendant
the
incumbent
Register of Deeds of Parañaque City. The Order was served on 8
November 2001. On 8
November 2001. Celestra reset the auction sale on 8 November 2001.[13]
After the expiration of the TRO on 18 June 2001. docketed as Civil Case No. Celestra
from conducting the auction sale of the mortgaged properties
on 31 May 2001. Petitioners alleged that the
Certificate of Sale was a falsified document since there was no
actual sale that took place on 8 November 2001. and no
injunction having been issued by RTC-Branch 257. however. on respondent Atty.
Upon the motion of petitioners. Preliminary Injunction and Damages.

There was actually no auction sale conducted by [herein
respondent] Atty.[17]
Petitioners additionally prayed in their Amended Complaint
for the award of damages given the abuse of power of respondent
Metrobank in the preparation.
12-F. 2001 and the CERTIFICATE OF
SALE (Annex “K-2”) is therefore a FALSIFIED DOCUMENT and for which
the appropriate criminal complaint for falsification of official/public
document will be filed against the said [respondent] Celestra and the
responsible officers of [herein respondent] Metrobank.
Petitioners also sought. execution. in due time. the bad faith of
respondent Metrobank in offering the subject properties at a price
much lower than its assessed fair market value. and the gross
violation by respondents Metrobank and Atty. the
issuance of a TRO or a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
respondent Atty. Celestra on November 8. Celestra of the
injunction. the same
document is a NULLITY simply because the auction sale was done in
disobedience to a lawful order of this Court and that therefore the
auction sale proceeding is NULL AND VOID AB INITIO. Celestra and all other persons from proceeding
. in their Amended Complaint. and implementation of
the Debt Settlement Agreement with petitioners.void because the auction sale was done in disobedience to a
lawful
order
of
RTC-Branch
257. But even granting that an auction sale was actually conducted and
that the said Certificate of Sale is not a falsified document. Relevant
portions
of
the
Amended Complaint of petitioners read:
12-E.

with the foreclosure sale. after the expiration of
the TRO.
which
was
conducted
by
respondents Metrobank and Atty. petitioners filed with the Court of
Appeals
a
Petition
for Certiorari. Thus. The
auction
sale. [18]
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 6 March
2002 Order of RTC-Branch 257. CV-01-0207.
No. Celestra. who
presided over Civil Case No. on the premise that no auction sale was
actually held on 8 November 2001. RTC-Branch 257 set the hearing for the
presentation of evidence by respondent Metrobank for the
application for preliminary injunction on 9 November 2005. When RTC-Branch 257 failed to
take any action on said Motion. on 27
September 2005.
70208. the Court of Appeals
reversed
the 6
March
2002 Order
of
RTC-Branch
257
and
remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal of respondents with finality. RTC-Branch 257 denied
petitioners’ application for injunction on the ground that the sale
of the foreclosed properties rendered the same moot and
academic. was considered as proper and valid. Their motion was
granted and the case was re-raffled to RTC-Branch 258.
docketed
as
CA-G. petitioners sought the inhibition of
Acting Executive Judge Rolando How of RTC-Branch 257. and without knowledge of the Order dated 8 November
2001 of RTC-Branch 257.[19]
On 2 November 2005. [20]
. In a Decision dated 26 July 2002.
In an Order dated 6 March 2002.R.

The
Complaint
was
docketed
asCivil
Case
No. Atty.000.
CV-05-
0402. Antonio
Viray. the injunction case that was being heard before RTC-Branch
258. petitioners filed with Branch 195 of the
Regional Trial Court of Parañaque (RTC-Branch 195) a Verified
Complaint for Damages against respondents Metrobank.
.00 from the intended sale. The properties subject of the said auction sale are the
same properties subject of Civil Case No. CV-05-0402. 2001 when in fact
there was none. and exemplary damages against the respondents for
making it appear that an auction sale of the subject properties
took place.On 28 October 2005. Petitioners sought in their Complaint the award of actual. Atty. the action for
damages pending before said court. Pompeyo Maynigo. 01-0207.
Celestra. Ramon Miranda and Atty. and three Metrobank lawyers. Atty.
[21]
Petitioners
filed
Consolidate[22] dated 27
with
RTC-Branch
December
195
2005. the prospective buyers of the said
properties lost their interest and petitioner Chua was prevented
from realizing a profit of P70. CV-010207.
a
Motion
seeking
to
the
consolidation of Civil Case No. The above-captioned case is a complaint for damages as a
result of the [herein respondents’] conspiracy to make it appear as if
there was an auction sale conducted on November 8. as a result of which. based on the following grounds:
2.000. with Civil Case No.
moral. namely.

among the affirmative defenses of respondents. 01-0207. RTC-Branch 195 granted
the Motion to Consolidate. praying for the dismissal of the Complaint for Damages
in Civil Case No. CV-050402 be transferred to RTC-Branch 258.[26] and consequently. and both cases have
the same central issue of whether there was an auction sale. Since the subject matter of both cases are the same properties
and the parties of both cases are almost the same.[24]
After the two cases were consolidated. respondents filed two
motions before RTC-Branch 258: (1) Motion for Reconsideration of
the Order dated 23 January 2006 of RTC-Branch 195. on the ground of forum shopping. and ordered that Civil Case No. [25] RTC-Branch
258 issued an Order on 3 July 2006. the rights
. then
necessarily. rendering the
second Motion of respondents moot. [23]
In an Order dated 23 January 2006. granting the first Motion of
respondents. which was hearing Civil
Case No.
On 3 January 2006. thus.3. which
granted the Motion to Consolidate of petitioners. and (2)
Manifestation and Motion raising the ground of forum shopping. RTC-Branch 258 declared
that the facts or claims submitted by petitioners. respondents filed with RTC-Branch
195 an Opposition to Motion to Consolidate with Prayer for
Sanctions. CV-05-0402 on the
ground of forum shopping. both cases should be consolidated. CV-05-0402. dismissing Civil Case No.

CV No.
In a Decision dated 31 January 2008. the same has already been mooted
by the dismissal of this case. and the principal parties in the two cases were the
same.R. the feigned auction sale. such that the nullification of
the foreclosure of the subject properties. which petitioners sought
.. RTC-Branch 258 held in its 3 July 2006 Order[27] that:
It is.asserted. It
also declared that the cause of action of the two cases.
From the foregoing Order of RTC-Branch 258. premises considered. the motion
is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED due to forum shopping.
As regards the second motion. the allegations of the
defendant are found meritorious and with legal basis. petitioners filed
a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Court of Appeals. they represented a community of interest. 88087. i.e. the Court of Appeals
affirmed the 3 July 2006 Order of RTC-Branch 258. The appellate
court observed that although the defendants in the two cases
were not identical. the honest belief of the Court that since there is
identity of parties and the rights asserted.
WHEREFORE. hence. the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by the defendants whereby this case is DISMISSED due to forum
shopping and the Manifestation and Motion likewise filed by the
defendants has already been MOOTED by the said dismissal. was the
same.
upon which the recovery of damages was based. therefore.
docketed as CA-G.

[28] In its Decision. and subject properties.
judgment
in
either
case
would
result
in res
judicata. The Court of Appeals additionally noted that petitioners
admitted in their Motion for Consolidation that Civil Case No. CV01-0207 and Civil Case No.in Civil Case No. CV-05-0402 involved the same parties. on the ground of forum shopping should be
upheld as it is supported by law and jurisprudence. CV-050402.[29] the
appellate court decreed:
All told. Thus. claimed by petitioners in Civil Case No. the dismissal by the RTC-Br.[30]
Hence.
WHEREFORE.
central issue. which the Court of Appeals denied in a
Resolution dated 28 March 2008. the present Petition. the assailed order is AFFIRMED. would render proper the award for
damages. in which the following issues are
raised[31]:
I
. CV-05-0402. CV-01-0207.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned Decision.
Civil Case No. Costs against
the [herein petitioners]. 258 of the “second” case.

II
WHETHER OR NOT THE OUTCOME OF THE “FIRST” CASE WOULD AFFECT
THE “SECOND” CASE. or in a sworn certification annexed
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any court. CV01-0207 and Civil Case No. Certification against forum shopping.
The Court answers in the affirmative. 5.
The proscription against forum shopping is found in Section
5. he shall
. (b) if
there is such other pending action or claim.E. to the best of
his knowledge.. which provides that:
SEC. tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and. I. a complete statement of the
present status thereof. and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the
same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending. TO HAVE THE AUCTION SALE BE
DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID. Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Court.WHETHER OR NOT THE “FIRST” AND THE “SECOND” CASES HAVE THE
SAME ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE. no such other action or claim is pending therein. CV-05-0402 amounts to forum
shopping.
The only issue that needs to be determined in this
case is whether or not successively filing Civil Case No.—The plaintiff or
principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory
pleading asserting a claim for relief.

Forum shopping exists when a party repeatedly avails
himself of several judicial remedies in different courts.[33]
.report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his
aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. unless otherwise provided. and all raising substantially the same
issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court.
simultaneously or successively. the same shall be ground for summary
dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitutes willful
and deliberate forum shopping. in the process creating the
possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different
fora upon the same issue. all substantially founded
on the same transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances. The submission of a false certification or non-compliance with
any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court. as well as
a cause for administrative sanctions.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be
curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice. what is truly important in determining whether
forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the courts
and party-litigant by a party who asks different courts to rule on
the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs. upon motion and after
hearing.[32]
Ultimately. without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
actions.

CV-05-0402 before RTCBranch 195. CV-01-0207
seeks the annulment of the 8 November 2001 public auction and
certificate of sale issued therein.[34]
In the present case.
the previous case not having been resolved yet
(where the ground for dismissal is litis
pendentia). CV-01-0207 pending
before RTC-Branch 258. the existence of Civil Case No. petitioners insist that they
are not guilty of forum shopping. attached to
their Verified Complaint in Civil Case No. where the ground
for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res
judicata). but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action. there is no dispute that petitioners failed
to state in the Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping. (2) filing multiple cases based on
the same cause of action and the same prayer.
and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action. while Civil Case No.
the previous case having been finally resolved
(where the ground for dismissal is res judicata). and (2) the judgment in
. CV-05-0402
prays for the award of actual and compensatory damages for
respondents’ tortuous act of making it appear that an auction sale
actually took place on 8 November 2001. since (1) the two cases do not
have the same ultimate objective – Civil Case No. Nevertheless.Forum shopping can be committed in three
ways: (1) filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and with the same prayer.

however. effect of. The Court. on the annulment of the foreclosure
sale. [35] A cause of action is understood to be the delict or
wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation
of the primary rights of the plaintiff. Rule 2 of the Rules of Court proscribe the
splitting of a single cause of action:
Section 3.Civil Case No.
Forum shopping occurs although the actions seem to be
different. A party may not institute more than one suit for a
single cause of action. Splitting a single cause of action.
on the entitlement of petitioners to damages.
Section 4.
Petitioners committed forum shopping by filing multiple
cases based on the same cause of action.
Sections 3 and 4. when it can be seen that there is a splitting of a cause of
action. would not affect the outcome of Civil Case No. the
filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a
ground for the dismissal of the others. CV-05-0402.—If two or
more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action. It is true that a single act or
. although with different
prayers. finds these arguments refuted by the allegations made
by petitioners themselves in their Complaints in both cases. CV-01-0207.

However. as when the
act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and
distinct legal obligations. a review of
the records reveals that petitioners also included an explicit claim
for damages in their Amended Complaint [37] in Civil Case No. Yet. there is but a single cause of action regardless of the
number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one
person.
CV-01-0207 was solely concerned with the nullification of the
auction sale and certification of sale.[36]
Petitioners would like to make it appear that Civil Case No. Celestra are in gross violation of the injunction
made under Article 19 of the Civil Code. as
follows [38]:
. CV01-0207. to wit:
20-A. CV-050402 was a totally separate claim for damages. thereby entitling the [herein
petitioners] to recover damages from the said [respondents] in such
amount as may be awarded by the Court. whileCivil Case No. where there is only one delict
or wrong.omission can violate various rights at the same time. (Emphasis ours.)
The “abovementioned acts” on which petitioners anchored their
claim to recover damages were described in the immediately
preceding paragraph in the same Amended Complaint. The abovementioned acts of [herein respondents]
Metrobank and Atty.

000. thus [40]:
24.101.[39]
The Court observes that the damages being claimed by
petitioners in their Complaint in Civil Case No. [petitioner’s]
buyers of the mortgaged properties had lost their interest anymore
(sic) in buying the said mortgaged properties for not less
.20. The acts of [herein respondents] in making it appear that there was
an auction sale conducted on 8 November 2001 and the subsequent
execution of the fictitious Certificate of Sale is TORTIOUS. obviously because they know that the [petitioners]
or any other third person would not be able to seasonably raise the said
amount and that said [respondent] Bank would be the winner by default
at the said sale at public auction.117. 20 and
21 of the Civil Code which provide that:
xxxx
25. more particularly Articles 19. the [herein respondent] is fully aware that the
assessed fair market value of the real properties they seek to foreclose
and sell at public auction yet they have knowingly offered the said
properties for sale at the amount of EIGHTY EIGHT MILLION ONE
HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND NINETY THREE PESOS AND 98/100
(PhP88. To reiterate.98). CV-05-0402 were
also
occasioned
by
the
supposedly
fictitious 8
November
2001 foreclosure sale.093.
Petitioners averred in their Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. which
entitles the [herein petitioners] to file this instant action under the
principles of Human Relations. As a result of the aforesaid acts of the [respondents].
CV-01-0207 that the assessed fair market value of the subject
properties was P176.00.

There is no question that the claims of petitioners for
damages in Civil Case No. the
purportedly wrongful conduct of respondents in connection with
the foreclosure sale of the subject properties.. which would have thus enabled the plaintiff to realize a
net amount of not less than SEVENTY MILLION PESOS. more or less.000.e. said to
be P176. the damages in Civil
.00.
26. extent and amount
of compensation of which will (sic) proven during the trial but not less
than SEVENTY MILLION PESOS.391.000.000.
27.000. CV-050402 are premised on the same cause of action.84 (as stated in the petition for
foreclosure). On the other hand.than P175.00 could have paid off
[petitioners’] loan obligation with [respondent] Metrobank for the
principal amount of P79.000. In Civil Case No.. the nature. [petitioners]
suffered and will continue to suffer actual or compensatory. moral
and exemplary or corrective damages. CV-01-0207.i. a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “R”
and made an integral part hereof.650.450. the damages purportedly
arose from the bad faith of respondents in offering the subject
properties at the auction sale at a price much lower than the
assessed fair market value of the said properties. CV-01-0207 and Civil Case No.117.
At first glance. The aborted sale of the [petitioner’s] mortgaged properties for the
said amount of not less than P175. By reason of the aforesaid acts of [respondents].00 as per appraisal report of the Philippine
Appraisal Co.. said claims for damages may appear
different.000.00 or even the contested
restructured amount of P103. Inc.

petitioners cannot deny that all their claims for damages
arose from what they averred was a fictitious public auction sale
of the subject properties. Yet.000.”
because
respondents made it appear that the said properties were already
sold at the auction sale. The rule against splitting a cause of action is intended to
prevent repeated litigation between the same parties in regard to
the same subject of controversy. CV-05-0402. who had initially offered to buy the subject
properties
for
“not
less
thanP175.00. Even though petitioners did not specify in their
Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. Evidently.00 in their Complaint in Civil Case No.000. CV-050402.
CV-01-0207 will not determine that of Civil Case No.
Petitioners’ contention that the outcome of Civil Case No.000. CV-05-0402
does not justify the filing of separate cases. it is worthy to note that petitioners
quoted closely similar values for the subject properties in both
cases.
Even if it were
assumed that the two cases contain two separate remedies that
are both available to petitioners. and petitioners
expressly prayed that they be awarded damages of not less
than P70. these two remedies that arose
from one wrongful act cannot be pursued in two different
cases.000. to protect the defendant from
.Case No. allegedly resulted from the backing out of
prospective buyers.
against
which
they
measured
the
damages
they
supposedly suffered. leaving the
same to the determination of the trial court. this is due to the fact that
petitioners actually based the said values on the single appraisal
report of the Philippine Appraisal Company on the subject
properties. CV-01-0207 the exact
amount of damages they were seeking to recover.

CV-05-0402 for the purpose of seeking a favorable decision in
. and both cases have
the same central issue of whether there was an auction sale. on
the ground of either litis pendentia or res judicata. The properties subject of the said auction sale are the
same properties subject of Civil Case No. It comes from the old maxim nemo
debet bis vexari. pro una et eadem causa (no man shall be twice
vexed for one and the same cause). if there
are more than two) actions shall be dismissed with prejudice. viz:
2.
3.
If the forum shopping is not considered willful and deliberate. then
necessarily. if
the forum shopping is willful and deliberate.[41]
Moreover. both cases should be consolidated. petitioners did not deliberately file Civil Case No.
[43]
In this case. Since the subject matter of both cases are the same properties
and the parties of both cases are almost the same.unnecessary vexation. The above-captioned case is a complaint for damages as a
result of the [herein respondents’] conspiracy to make it appear as if
there was an auction sale conducted on November 8.
the subsequent case shall be dismissed without prejudice. the same central issue.
petitioners
admitted
in
their
Motion
to
Consolidate[42] dated 27 December 2005 before RTC-Branch 195
that both cases shared the same parties. However. and to avoid the costs and expenses
incident to numerous suits. 2001 when in fact
there was none.
and the same subject property.. both (or all. 01-0207.

No. CV-01-0207 before
RTC-Branch 258 will be continued. Costs
No.
SO ORDERED. affirming the Order dated 3 July 2006 of Branch 258 of
the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City.
proceedings
is
in Civil
dismissing Civil
AFFIRMED. The Decision dated 31 January 2008 and Resolution
dated 28 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. CV-05-0402
is dismissed and the hearing of Civil Case No.
prejudice
to
Case
the
against
petitioners.
IN
VIEW
OF
THE
FOREGOING. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
. Otherwise. they would not have moved for the
consolidation of both cases. only Civil Case No.
CV-05-0402.R.another forum. CV No. Thus. the instant Petition
is DENIED.
without
Case
CV-01-0207.
88087.
MINITA V.

. it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court’s Division. and
the Division Chairperson’s Attestation. CHICONAZARIO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson. Article VIII of the Constitution.
MINITA V. Third
Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13.